Invalid attachment proclamation cannot create constructive notice; bona fide purchasers for value without notice remain protected.

Statutory publication of an attachment proclamation for immovable property must be proved in the manner required by Order XXI Rule 54 CPC; mere service of the warrant on the defaulter is insufficient. In the absence of evidence of affixation, beat-of-drum publication, or other mandated notice, constructive notice to third parties cannot be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. On the facts, the purchasers had conducted title verification, bought for value, and relied on bank finance without fraud or wilful abstention from inquiry, so they were protected as transferees for consideration without notice under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proclamation of attachment of immovable property was validly published in the manner required by Rule 54 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the purchasers could claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The prescribed modes of proclamation under Rule 54 of Order XXI are intended to give notice to the general public, and mere service of the attachment warrant on the defaulter is not enough. In the absence of material showing affixation, proclamation by beat of drum, or other statutory publication, the Court found a substantive failure of compliance and declined to draw a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court further found that the purchasers had undertaken due diligence through title verification at the office of the Sub-Registrar and that the property was purchased for value, substantially funded by bank finance, without wilful abstention from inquiry or fraud.

Conclusion: The attachment proclamation was not shown to have been validly published, and the purchasers were entitled to the protection available to transferees for consideration without notice. The challenge to the High Court's judgment therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory proclamation of attachment of immovable property is not proved to have been published in the mode prescribed by law, constructive notice to third parties cannot be presumed, and a transferee for value without notice is protected against enforcement of the charge.

---